LODGING A COMPLAINT
• Firstly, please read the guidance document posted on this website under Public Resources- "Internal Auditors Intimidated for Blowing the Whistle". It provides clear guidance on how to proceed when thinking about blowing the whistle (also referred to as making a protected disclosure).
• Contact your own professional body for advice. All participating organisations have received guidance and training on how to assist their members.
• Upon receipt of the complaint (and/or dossier of information), the participating professional body may refer the matter to the AEPF Evaluation Panel if necessary. The Evaluation Panel will discuss the case, and recommend a course of action. Typically such action may be a referral to an authority such as the Auditor General, Public Protector or Public Service Commission.
• You will be notified by your professional body as soon as possible regarding the course of action taken.
Criteria for reviewing cases
• The AEPF reviews matters reported by the AEPF -IIASA, IRMSA, SAICA, SAIPA, Corruption Watch, The Ethics Institute, IOD SA, ACFE SA, as well as our forum members; CSSA, FPI, SACIA and OPSA
• The AEPF reviews matters that concern whistleblowing, corruption, unethical behaviour and practises, fraud and governance and gives guidance and recommendations only to complainants.
• Members reporting cases to the AEPF must have exhausted all internal process at their working organisations.
• The case matter should then then be reported at the Professional membership level following exhausting the matter at the working organisation.
• The Professional membership will then refer the case matter to the AEPF if the matter meets the case criteria.
• All cases will be reviewed on merit.
• No police or court cases will be reviewed.
• No cases older than 2 years will be reviewed.
• No cases from outside of the AEPF membership will be reviewed.
• Each case will be given a case no and filed as such for reference purposes.
• The AEPF independent evaluations panel may request for all information necessary from the complainant in order to review a case in chronological order.
• Recommendations from the AEPF are solely based on factual information provided as given from the panel of experts who, voluntarily commit to membership on the AEPF Evaluations Panel.
• Correspondence on case matters may take time for reviews and feedback from the AEPF.